Colleen Tinker
This week we received a letter which asked a simple question: “How can I show/prove to Adventists that John was not referencing the Mosaic Law in Revelation 12:17 and in Revelation 14:12?”
Here are those texts:
Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea (Rev. 12:17).
Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus (Rev. 14:12).
These texts, almost all Adventists know, are essential proof-texts to demonstrate that in the Time of Trouble, the devil will be enraged with those who keep the Ten Commandments (demonstrated by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath holy). Thus, Seventh-day Adventists are called to endure those dreadful days, because their obedience to the law, especially to the fourth commandment, is the very mark of their loyalty to God. Their Sabbath-keeping will mark them out as the object of the devil’s wrath, and they must endure to the end.
When Adventists discover that the true gospel is far different from the message of Adventism and leave their Adventism behind, the problem of these two texts in Revelation often remain. How is one to understand these words of John when he refers to those who keep “the commandments of God”?
We share our answer to this letter below.
Entole and Nomos
The explanations that show the truth of these texts are not always easily grasped by Adventists because of their preconditioned beliefs. One of the most compelling facts, however, is that John is utterly consistent in all of his five books—the gospel of John, the three epistles, and Revelation: when he refers to the Law, he uses the Greek word nomos. When he refers to the sayings or teachings of Jesus and of the triune God, he uses the word entole. Throughout all of John’s writing, this usage is consistent.
Thus, when Jesus said in John 13:34, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another,” the Greek word underlying “commandment” is entole. Again in verse 14:21, “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me,” the word is entole. Similarly Revelation 14:12 uses the word entole, as does Revelation 12:17.
Conversely, when John writes about Philip telling Nathanael that they have found “him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph,” John used the word nomos because he is actually referring to the Law, not to the teachings and sayings of Jesus.
You can check this usage yourself using an online interlinear (or a printed one if you have it) such as Bible Gateway or Bible Hub.
While some Bible authors do occasionally use entole to refer to the law, John is utterly consistent—and it is John’s texts that Adventists use for proof-texts. In context, however, there is no way that John’s words can be made to refer to the Ten Commandments, because John simply was not referring to the Law! He was referring to the teachings and sayings and personal commands of the Lord Jesus and of the triune God, not to the Law.
This fact of John’s usage is supported by the New Testament explanation of the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews and the book of Galatians make it crystal clear that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and it is obsolete; it was shadows pointing to Christ! (Heb. 8; 10:1; Col 1:16-17). Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 3 explains that the law written on stone kills; it is a law of condemnation and death, but the new covenant of the Spirit gives life. Whenever a person reads Moses, a veil covers his heart, but whenever a person turns to Christ, the veil is taken away. (See 2 Cor. 3:4–18.)
This understanding of John’s use of entole and nomos was a watershed discovery for me when I was “unpacking” my head full of Adventist proof-texts. In his book Sabbath In Christ, Dale Ratzlaff addresses the subject of John’s uses of entole and nomos. For an in-depth discussion and listings of every instance John uses “law” and “commandments”, see page 329 and the footnotes following on pages 330, 331.
An Adventist would have to be willing to see what the New Testament actually teaches about the old covenant and the new covenant, though, in order to “see” the reality of John’s use of entole. The commandments which Christians keep are the teachings and commands of the Lord Jesus and all the teachings found in the New Testament about the New Covenant and about how a born-again person lives under it.
Ultimately, it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who illumines Scripture in the mind and heart of a believer and teaches him to live under God’s word in the grace of God in Christ Jesus. It is not the law which defines a true Christian’s faith and practice; it is the Spirit who teaches us to conform to God’s word and will. †
- Should We Leave the “Isms”? - May 9, 2024
- May 11–17 - May 9, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 9, 2024
Thank you, Colleen, for your insight. I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion of your article, but I’m afraid I can’t share your claim that ἐντολή is decisively distinct from νόμος, because, quite frankly, an analysis of the usage of ἐντολή in the Septuagint and the NT is not amenable to that idea. Lots of passages could be pointed at where the word ἐντολή is manifestly applied to the Mosaic law, so I’ll content myself with quoting two NT references of the usage:
“Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment [κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν]” (Luke 23:56).
“And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation [κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς] as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:15,16).
Obviously, both passages apply the noun ἐντολή to portions of the Pentateuch, one of them being the fourth commandment itself.
Now, trying to limit the nuance of ἐντολή in the book of Revelation to the usage of that noun in Johannine literature (purportedly, the fourth Gospel, the three epistles attributed to the apostle John, and the book of Revelation) is fraught with additional difficulty, because the authorship of the Gospel itself and of the epistles is debatable, as is the identity of the John that wrote Revelation. Admittedly, most Christians take it for granted that the author of all those books was one single individual: John, the son of Zebedee, one of the apostles, but, in reality such authorship rests entirely on tradition, not Scripture. It is obvious Revelation was written by someone named John (Rev. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8), but the fourth Gospel is anonymous, being attributed to someone known as “the beloved disciple” (see John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20, etc.), whose mysterious identity is compounded with purely imaginary notions, such as his being the youngest apostle, the son of Thunder and other such fanciful notions. In reality, the Gospel itself identifies someone else as being the especial recipient of Jesus’ paramount love (John 11:3, 5, 36), but such telltale references are routinely played down or ignored altogether.
As for the author of the three epistles that bear the name of John in their title, the only thing we know about him was that he was known as “the Elder”, presumably meaning he was both respected and advanced in years. Was the apostle John ever advanced in years? Such a notion does not fit satisfactorily with Jesus’ announcement to the two sons of Zebedee that “[y]ou will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with” (Mark 10:39), undoubtedly announcing premature death through martyrdom.
Because of the above, it is not certain at all that the apostle John wrote any of the books that comprise the so-called Johannine literature, and the notion that the Gospel and the Epistles share with the Revelation the authorship of one John of Patmos is far from evident.
The above makes me doubt of the validity of limiting the meaning of ἐντολή in the Revelation to the non-legal sense that noun has in the fourth Gospel and the epistles attributed to John. No such limitation should be taken as an unshakable premise. The fact is that ἐντολή can be used for any legal or non-legal directive. For instance, “the chief priests and Pharisees had given orders [ἐντολὰς] that if anyone found out where Jesus was, he should report it so that they might arrest him” (John 11:57). Fortunately, for Christians, the source of our ἐντολαί is none other than Jesus Christ himself: “I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command [ἐντολῆς] given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2). “‘A new command [Ἐντολὴν καινὴν] I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another’” (John 13:34). This should suffice.
The saints of Revelation that keep the commandments of God (12:17; 14:12) are not the distant spiritual descendants of the early Christians that, after long centuries of purported apostasy, took upon themselves the practice of Old Testament laws, but the early Christians themselves, who always kept the instructions of Jesus of Nazareth and his apostles.
We at Life Assurance Ministries do not subscribe to the “higher criticism” and scholarship that doubts the authorship of the biblical books. Conservative Bible scholars have held to the traditional authorship of the New Testament books for over 2,000 years. We will not argue the authorship of the books in order to undermine the interpretation of the words. Our position is not one we made up ourselves; we stand in the tradition of biblical scholars since the first century.
If we cannot assume that the word of God is preserved by God who gave it, that the words mean what the words say, and that God has superintended our knowledge of and access to the truth of His word, we have nothing on which to stand except our own minds. Those are flawed at best.
I stated in the original article that other authors did use “entole” to refer to the commands of the law in some instances. It is John who consistently used the words “entole” and “nomos” to refer to “teachings” and “law” respectively. The only reason to question John’s authorship and the usage of these words is to undermine the New Testament teaching that Christians are under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses. As we know, Adventists have misinterpreted these passages in John’s books for the sake of placing members in fear of abandoning the Sabbath.
If one understands that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus, that He has, in the new covenant, given us “another day, calling it TODAY” (Heb. 4), then there is is no need to question the usage of “entole” in John’s books.
Christians are not deemed worthy of salvation by Sabbath-keeping. It is not required of them. To question the validity of Scripture or its authorship in order to break down the words each New Testament author used by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is to place oneself over the Bible instead of under it.
We need an immovable foundation as our authority; Scripture is that immovable foundation. The words mean what the words say, and context is everything. Even if one questions the authorship of Revelation and the epistles of John, the context of the entire New Testament reveals that the law is no longer binding on Christians, that it was never given to gentiles, and the Sabbath is not a requirement God ever gave the body of Christ. It was the sign of God’s covenant with Israel, and the Lord Jesus fulfilled that covenant and inaugurated a new one in His blood. His resurrection brings us to life when we trust Him, and we are ushered into this new covenant and hidden with Christ in God. Jesus’ own righteousness is credited to our account. Sabbath is our new covenant rest in our Lord Jesus, not the keeping of a day.
These facts are clear whether or not we question John’s authorship of his five books!
Whoever spoke of higher criticism, Colleen? I merely pointed out that the notion that the apostle John wrote several books of the New Testament is just a traditional claim, not a Scriptural datum. If we really want to adhere to Sola Scriptura, it should not come as a surprise to anyone (unless they prefer Scriptura Comitata, Accompanied Scripture) that traditional claims are rightfully challenged. Claiming that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, when the Bible itself does not make such a claim, doesn’t detract from its inspiration. Similarly, claiming that John of Patmos, the author of Revelation, was the younger son of Zebedee does not add to the value that its prophetical forecasts had for the first generation of Christians.
I meant to say “Challenging that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, when the Bible itself does not make such a claim, doesn’t detract from its inspiration”.
One last thing: I never said that Christians should keep the Sabbath. My observations to your article do not aim at undermining John’s purported authorship of the so-called Johannine literature in order to undermine the supposed difference between ἐντολή and νόμος so that a case may be made to uphold Sabbath observance. Far from it. My point was simply that no such clear-cut theological distinction may be made between one of the nuances of ἐντολή and Green noun νόμος. The issue of the John’s supposed authorship of the fourth Gospel can and must be studied on its own merits, irrespective of how that Gospel uses ἐντολή or other terms.